Reform-statement-Rauterkus
Statement about Legislative Reform at a Hearing in Pittsburgh on April 19, 2007 From Mark Rauterkus, vice-chair, Allegheny County Libertarian Party, standing for public office in 2007, again. 108 South 12th Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15203 Mark@Rauterkus.com http://Elect.Rauterkus.com Buzz of reform for our political landscape is welcomed. However, it is small step from new reforms to being deformed. The political body is frail. A hyper charged reform agenda could kill our democratic process just as a marathon could kills a frail E.R. Patient. I prefer a different sequence. Talk is good and cheap. But reform might be best kept on the back burner. First we should 'replace.' Then we should 're-direct.' Finally, we should ' reform.' We need to replace the selfish, corrupt, less-than-truthful politicians that have been power grabbing and are in office today with a different breed of citizen. We need pragmatic people to serve who understand the constitution and liberty. Those that have made this mess are often the least likely to clean it up. The replacement process and the revolution at the ballot box has begun. Incumbents have lost races. New faces with new values and priorities have arrived. More is needed before I want to dive headlong into reforms. I served on a committee devoted to the study of campaign finance reform for local government established by Bill Peduto of Pgh's City Council a few years ago. Great people worked diligently on difficult issues and our work product has not seen the light of day – yet. It is coming soon, so I've been promised. Let's sustain these discussions in various settings. Consider my presence as it confounds typical 'campaign finance reform legislation.' I'm presently standing for five public offices including Allegheny County Chief Executive, County Council, Mayor, City Controller and City Council. If, for example, a $2,000 spending or income cap is placed on the candidate for one race, what about me, now, as I'm in five races. Or, Dan Onorato has $1.5 million in the bank from County Executive dealings that can be leveraged into a governor's race. I'm a coach. I've coached at the NCAA Division I level for six years. The rulebook when I began my coaching career was only two inches thick. Today's rulebook is massive. Annual changes are made to the rules. Enforcement is a major headache. Here is the gist of the challenge. No matter what rules you establish, creative people can always be ahead of the rules. I can out-flank any rulebook you design. Coaches do this all the time. The rulebook has to evolve at break-neck speeds to keep up – in a field where rules, like laws, are very important. This makes a rat-race where everyone looses – except, perhaps, the lawyers. PA Political Reform needs to avoid those same traps. This is a philosophical that can ground you and this effort like the “north star” directed viking ships. Things need to be done. But, we do need to guard that the wrong things are not done. Favor liberty, freedom, more information, openness. By and large, Libertarians don't like term limits. But, I'd take term limits as a remedial step. But I don't want freshmen legislators hoodwinked so term limits are a further concentration of power with some back room wire pullers. Above all, you must fix ballot access. It is crazy that I'm striving to get 10,000 eligible voters in Allegheny County to sign this petition for to get onto the ballot and be certain that they used their middle initial. You should not talk about another issue – ever – until you have sensible ballot access. Elections need to be fair, as set forth in the constitution. We don't have a ballot clutter problem. This is EVERYONE's worry. Our democratic process for candidates is a mess. I can present a long list of insights as to what I'd do to make changes in these regards. But the ballot-access coalition is already doing a splendid job in the organization of solutions. Transparent PAC ACCOUNTS: In banking, 'trust funds' exist that provide unlimited, real-time witness to every deposit and withdrawal. This real world, marketplace solution could be applied to all political action committees. This solution comes without any cost to the government. It saves money by putting all the reporting of political money transactions off of the backs of the election departments. All candidates and political action committees would have a bank account at any state-sanctioned commercial bank with a public account number so all transactions could be witnessed over the internet. I'd love to see much greater use of TRANSPARENT PAC ACCOUNTS for governmental line items as well. The Pittsburgh Shade Tree Commission has a fund. How much money is in it? When was the last deposit. Where did that money come from? Where was the last payment? How much? What is the balance? How does that compare to past years? How come the donuts for staffers cost so much? But let's not stop at the “Shade Trees” -- let's consider real-time reporting for all sorts of governmental income and expense streams. Today's deposit of lottery funds, gambling incomes, dog licenses, parking tickets and everything else can be made open to anyone to anywhere with the internet and the right type of banking transactions – if there is a political will to make things transparent to citizens. That's our money. I want to shine a light on it all and watch it, if I choose. Scarlet Letter If we have a law that puts a cap on the amount of money any one citizen can contribute to a candidate, I want to see scarlet letter sanctions on rule breakers. Those that break the law and are unethical in our political process should wear this scarlet letter. They would be eliminated / not eligible for any government money from any agency for as the duration of the rule-breaker's tenure. This goes to pay to play antics. Let's say a new rule comes into being and that no citizen can give more than $1,000 to any candidate. But, a developer or a bridge contractor really wants to build a tunnel under the river for half-a-billion dollars. Buying off four or five city council members and paying a $10,000 fine for each is worth it. Even with the fines, it is a good investment. We should not want to do business with people who bend the rules and break the law. We don't want to do business with their companies and employers either. And, if they should move jobs, that company or client as well. The only way to get rid of the scarlet letter designation is to have the person who benefited, the candidate or politician, resign and get out of public office. So, if candidate and a patron hosts a golf outing and $200,000 comes in to schmooze for kickbacks, given that those amounts are illegal in the future, and they get caught, the client and his company would be in-eligible for all public money. But, a rich uncle wants to spend $200,000 on a candidate's campaign, and that guy doesn't ever deal with government contracts, no problem. You can't prohibit individual wealth from entering the process. But you can block it from pay to play folly. I worry about a smaller size of the state legislature. Don't put a bigger burden on candidates and in turn voters. I'd like to have votes among people that are known for who they are the communities on election day. I don't want ad-agency campaigns targeted at half-a-million people. I'd prefer a larger state house but no staffers. Get rid of all the staff members. Staff members would have a chance to be representatives themselves. And, the Reps would be expected to do the work of the people. Have a PA House shared, skeleton staff to act in legislative clerk capacities without party distinctions. Knock out all perks. Hold sessions only on five days a month in Harrisburg. The devil is in the details. I'd be glad to help think again about various solutions. Think it through. Category:Planks Category:Platform Planks from Mark Rauterkus